Sunday, February 19, 2012

Is Obama Wagging the Dog?

Is Obama Wagging the Dog?

The threat of Iran is as grave to the United States as it is to Israel, despite the geopolitical disparity. Too much saber-rattling and no action could lead to a tragic result.

Scott Krane

The writer is a post-graduate student at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

Despite the reckoning of Meir Dagan, something must be done about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons or firing long-range missiles, which indeed it possesses, at Israel. This is a sentiment shared across the West and some of the Arabian Peninsula; by Israel and the United States, across the aisle in the latter country.

Tougher and tougher economic sanctions from the United Nations are just not going to do it. The regime in the Islamic Republic will continue to inch closer and closer to acquiring nuclear warheads, while Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues his assaults of rhetoric and threats against Israel on state-run Iranian radio and television. He recently said: "From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this…"

Iranian General Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard, has warned Iran's neighbors that "Any place where enemy offensive operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran originate will be the target of a reciprocal attack by the Guard's fighting units…"

Something must be done to defeat this dangerous foe, but who will launch the strike? After all, the threat is as grave to the United States as it is to Israel, despite the geopolitical disparity. Too much saber-rattling and no action could lead to a tragic result.

Should the attack be made by Israel, the IAF would use its Jericho II – capable of striking targets 1,500 miles away. The strikes – which have erstwhile begun in an electronic warfare capacity – would not just focus on the nuclear reactors, as Israel has succeeded in taking down both Syria's and Iraq's nuclear programs in the past, but would also strike various military facilities in Iran.

Former chief of the CIA, and current US Defense Secretary, Leone Panetta is caught double-talking in statements to the press. He believes on the one hand that the Jewish State will strike Iran sometime before the commencement of summer 2012; while on the other hand, he encourages economic sanctions on Iran by the US, unless the Iranians draw yet closer to a nuclear acquisition or an attack. Panetta was heard saying:

“My view is that right now the most important thing is to keep the international community unified…so we’re keeping that pressure on to convince Iran that they shouldn’t develop a nuclear weapon, that they should join the international family of nations…If they don’t, we have all options on the table and would be prepared to respond if we have to…"Indeed, Western naval forces, led by the US aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, have increased their presence in the Gulf. On Saturday, Iran's Revolutionary Guard began naval maneuvers near the Strait of Hormuz – a crux oil export route – practicing for the onslaught of war. Americans, Saudis, British, French and other nations would support the attack on Iran, however, unless a major naval maneuver is conducted, they would risk stoppage of the export, sending oil prices sky high.

The strategic placement of Western forces suggests that if someone should make a move, it could be the United States and not Israel, who would indeed be left vulnerable after the Iranian retaliation, unless Washington and Jerusalem are somehow aligned. With Iran's far-reaching terrorist cells such as Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, it is guaranteed that there will be strikes on civilians in both Israel and possibly the United States and Europe, should the Western alliance make the first move.

Meir Dagan insists that Iran will not have nuclear weapons until 2015. This is opposed to a recent report from the IAEA. Should Israel attack Iran, according to Dagan, Hizbullah and Hamas would respond with massive rocket attacks on Israel and according to Dagan, "In that scenario, Syria may join in the fray."

Meanwhile, President Obama appears to be in favor of a diplomatic solution and recently, told a press conference:"Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We've still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran. And so our preferred solution here is diplomatic…"Let's analyze America's recent foreign policy:

US President Barack Obama has pulled out all troops from Iraq after severely damaging the al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. He paid for the majority of NATO strikes on Libya that assisted the rag-tag rebels of a civil war in that country that defeated Gadaffi. Obama is very much a war president. (Actually the American military is at work creating special mortars that could strike underground cells in Iran.)

However, the latter war I mentioned, that is, in Libya, was an attempt for the American president to show his might, and divert attention from his failing economic policy.

Because all diplomatic attempts by the United Nations and President Obama to quell the stand-off between Iran and Israel have failed miserably, and considering that should Israel attack the Islamic Republic, the threat of terrorism on the United States would increase, as would oil prices.

However, recall that the world was mildly shocked at Obama's no-fly zone in Libya. If President Obama wants to secure reelection, he can shock everyone once more, and pull a dangerous maneuver on Iran. He will, by doing so, acquire on-the-fence, moderate and Republican voters, taking them away from his still-to-be-determined right-wing presidential contender, next year.

He will be wagging-the-dog, taking attention from his far-left leaning economic policy that has made him hugely unpopular.